“Buy a new sharp knife and stick it four times into a banana tree on June 12th at midnight (i.e., Valentine’s day in Brazil, Saint Anthony’s day is on the 13th). Catch the liquid that will drip from the plant’s wound on a crisp, white paper that has been folded in two. The dripping liquid captured on the paper at night will form the first letter of the name of your future partner”

1. specificity of time
2. specificity of place
3. specificity of material
4. repetition of procedures
5. number of procedural steps
6. number of items used
7. edibility (presence or absence of edible items)
8. digestibility (presence or absence of any sort of ingestion)
9. religious icon (presence or absence of a religious icon).

Abram and Sarai

Rama and Sita

The hero’s journey is a common theme in myths – ancient and modern.  In ancient myths, the hero is usually a man — with the woman playing a minor role.  Unlike Joseph Campbell’s stress on shared hero themes, in this post I will contrast a Jewish myth with a Hindu myth to highlight differences.  The Jewish myth is the founding story of the Jewish nation: Abraham’s conquering journey.  The Hindu myth is Rama’s journey of exile.  But more specifically, I will focus on how these heroes consulted their wives on the journey.

Abram (later, “Abraham”) is the founder of Judaism. The Jewish Torah, in Genesis 12, tells us that Abram’s god (“Yahweh”: YHWY) commanded him to journey from his father’s land (Babylonia) to a new promised land called Canaan  where he was to slaughter the local inhabitants and make the land his own — not an uncommon event in those days.  This journey and the planned genocides were to to fulfill YHWY’s purpose to establish a new pure nation.  Remember that shortly prior to this story YHWY had lost his temper and destroyed the whole world except one family in a flood.  YHWY was again picking favorites.

For the long, dangerous warring journey, Abram takes all his property including his wife Sarai (later, “Sarah”).

 ”Abram took his wife Sarai and his bother’s son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and the persons that they had acquired in Haran [servants/slaves]; and they set out for the land of Canaan.”
Genesis 12: 5

Note that the Torah makes no mention of Abram asking Sarai to join him on the trip.  It is implied that Sarai is treated like just another piece of Abram’s property and just does as she is told.

The Hindu Ramayana is an entire epic based on the exile journey of prince Rama (synopsis here).  Below I contrast Abram’s and Rama’s journey – especially the relationship these heroes to their wives:

• Rama’s journey was into exile; Abram’s journey was for conquest.
• Rama was obeying his dharma; Abram was obeying his god.
• Rama’s journey was into poverty; Abram had YHWY’s promise of wealth and power
• Rama & his wife gave away their belongings for their journey; Abram took everything he owned.
• Rama requested that his wife Sita stay behind for the sake of her safety;   Abram is not mentioned considering Sarai’s well-being.
• Sita refuses to stay behind and lectures Rama on the role of the wife.  Sarai has no voice in Abram’s story.

Below I have copied Sita’s beautiful speech to her husband.  Her short speech will give you a wonderful taste of the beauty of the Ramayana.  My goal is to perhaps put a small dent in any vestige of Judeo-Christian parochialism. That parochialism is usually unconscious and often simply due to lack of familiarity with other traditions.  So here is a taste of familiarity – enjoy this sampling of Hinduism:

The Ramayana by William Buck (pgs 73-74: Book 2, The Ayodhya Book):

Rama said [to Sita], “Wait for my return. Wait for me, everything will be all right. … The time [of my 14-year exile] will quickly pass, you will soon see me return.”

She answered softly, “It is very strange, My Lord, that you alone among all the men in the world have not heard that a wife and her husband are one.”

“There is no happiness in the forest,” said Rama.  “there is danger.  Lions roar and keep pitiless watch from the mouths of their hill-caves, waterfalls crash and pain the ears, and so the wood is full of misery.”

“Surely your fortune is also mine,” said Sita.

“Enraged elephants in their fury trample men to death.”

“Kings in cities execute their faithful friends at any hour, day or night.”

“There is little to eat but windfallen fruit and white roots.”

“I will eat after you have taken your share of them.”

“There is no water, vines shut out the Sun, at night there are but hard beds of leaves.”

“I will gather flowers.”

“Creeping serpents slither across the trails and swim crookedly in the rivers awaiting prey.”

“The wayfarer will see flocks of colored birds fly and disappear into shady trees.”

“There is always hunger and darkness and great fear,” said Rama. “Scorpions sting and poison the blood; there is fever in the air, fires rage uncontrolled; there are no dear friends nearby, and so the wood is full of misery.”

“It is Ayodhya [their home city] that would be the wilderness for me without you,” said Sita. “Your bow is no decoration,  your knife is not for wood-chopping, your arrows are not toys, but keep me from your arguments.  We will be together. The water will be nectar, the thistles silk, the raw hides many-colored blankets. I’ll be no burden. Rama, I depend on you. I cannot be cast away like water left in a cup. Dear Rama, I am the humble dust at your feet, perfectly happy. How will you avoid me?”

“Then come,” smiled Rama. “You love me and I love you, what more is there? Without delay give away all our possesions that we won’t take with us, and get ready to go.”

Conclusion

Religious folks often feel that without their religion, their world would have no moral grounding.  They are wrong, of course, but their stories are used to reinforce their valued virtues — the stories serve as clothing for their moral compasses.  In this post I have contrasted the clothing used in Hindu and Judeo-Christian morality.  In these hero myths, the contrast between Abram’s and Rama’s relation to their wives offers different models of love, mutual respect and sacrifice. Hopefully this short example illustrated the bizarreness of the exclusivist Christian assumption that only their religious stories offer true moral compasses.

However, please be aware that I do not have a  naive, idealized view of either the Ramayana nor of Hinduism.  Both the Torah and the Ramayana (being ancient myths) are a mix of stories and in later posts I will show how the Ramayana also has incriminating views of women amongst her stories.  Nothing is sacred on this site.

He said that after decades of progress in which the percentage of people polled had somewhat steadily reported that they were more in favor of abortions, or as he styled it , were “pro-choice”, a recent poll indicates that the trend seems to be reversing. Apparently, the percentage of pro-choice people dropped by six points while the percentage of the so-call pro-life folks (actually, anti- abortion) increased by three points. I’m not sure where the other three points went to (presumably undecided). While this doesn’t really seem to be all that alarming, since the percentages are pretty close to acceptable standards of deviation and error, and the steady progress he assumed was really a haphazard up-and-down movement on the graph, Scarborough, in his usual inimitable fashion, felt like he had to expound on the answer to this reversal, as if it was really profound news. This is what morning talk show hosts do.

According to him, the technology and medicine surrounding the field of OB/GYN had increased tremendously since 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade, in numerous ways. Not only has the age of viability decreased a good bit, allowing babies to be born earlier, and survive their premature birth, but advances in imaging technology allow us now to peer into the womb in almost 3D Technicolor relief, giving us a much greater appreciation for the humanity within. He thinks that people who look at their children in such realistic detail are becoming more anti-abortion. While there may be something to that, it doesn’t do a lot to advance or set back the argument for or against abortion.

On the whole, with some exceptions,  babies who are aborted are unwanted, mistakes of the “heat of the moment”, and the pregnancies are terminated by women who truly feel,  after a lot of serious thought, that it is not in their best interests or that of the child’s to be brought into the world at that time. It is a choice they make, and one only they can make, or at least that’s how they feel. There is no alternative, other than having the child, which to them is not a viable alternative. Society really does very little for poor, single mothers, and if they also happen to be non-white, adoption is not really a widespread alternative either.  And don’t forget that republicans in Congress and state legislatures are attempting (and succeeding) to dismantle the very small safety nets in place.

There is no doubt in their mind, I’m sure, that the lump of cells in their womb is a potential child, but knowing that,  and seeing their options (or the dearth thereof) they still choose to terminate.

If they could see the child in all its full grown glory, it may be that some might have a different opinion. Hence all the current proposed legislation designed to force the women to look at trans-vaginal sonogram pictures, or wait for a proscribed period of time while reading literature with graphic pictures. Or being read statements of discouragement from doctors under penalty of law. All of this is designed to make them change their minds. Maybe it’s a good thing for some women, too. I can’t say with any certainty, sitting here at my keyboard, that any woman’s choice to terminate is made with all the possible amounts of knowledge that the best of society can muster to be at her disposal to help her make such a difficult decision.

But that’s the point of the pro-choice argument, isn’t it? No one can say that, except the woman at the helm of the decision-making process. Not some legislator in Richmond VA, or a pastor in  East Podhunk, NC. Not even the woman’s spouse, though I imagine any woman who’s married to a supporting husband will naturally seek the counsel of that spouse, since he has far more stake in the process than a legislator or pastor.

The pro-choice position says we can’t know what’s right for any individual woman, or for that matter, the potential child, but we do know that the person with the greatest stake in the matter is on top of it, is an adult (for the most part) and is presumed capable of making the right decision. A pro-life person, on the other hand, says that he/she DOES know what’s right for those women they’ve never even met, and will never meet, and not only that, what they believe is right should be forced on those women against their will.

If medical technology simply allows more people to think like that, then that’s a by-product of medical technology I can live with, because in the end, that same medical technology will save the lives of babies and mothers that would have died in 1973 – babies who ARE wanted, and mothers who have families and others who love them and want them to survive. Frankly, though, that has little effect on the decision making process, and I doubt it explains the supposed anomalies in Morning Joe’s statistics. I would tend to think that it’s merely a product of the recent attention women’s rights have been receiving in this political year. It’ll bounce back after the election.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not unsympathetic to what amounts to a visceral reaction to abortion. I saw a client’s 2 day old baby at a support hearing yesterday, and he was such a helpless, albeit cute, little creature, (my latent maternal feelings tended to flood my senses); to think that a child’s potentiality can be snuffed out at the whim of a single mother is hard to accept. If I was pregnant woman, I don’t know that I could make that decision.

But until we live in a society that values all life, including the life we have now, here, on this planet; until we stop executing human beings for crimes without absolute certainty (an impossibility, by the way) of guilt, and in an unfair and racially discriminatory manner; until we stop killing our fellow humans in wars over natural resources, by leaders that think in terms of killing innocent bystanders as “collateral damage” (humans are our most precious natural resource); until we have in place social structures that can act as safety nets for single, pregnant women who know that don’t have the ability to raise a child for 18 years; until we create a more equitable culture that values life based on modern notions of humanity rather than those of a 3000 year old book written by ignorant goat-herders at the beginning of the iron age ; until, in short, abortion is the only issue involving questions of life and death we have that still perplexes us, then I have no problem with allowing women to make a choice that many find repugnant. If society broadcasts the message that life is not sacrosanct in so many other instances, then it’s hypocritical for society to condemn women to unwanted pregnancies; especially in a society that seems to encourage sexual relations in all it does, from fashion, to marketing, to advertising, to mass entertainment. Human reproduction is a fact of life, and the biological imperative of sexual relations will always be with us.

Abortion is a necessary option when the religiously delusional among us refuse to acknowledge that sex and birth control go hand in hand while at the same time dictate that the results of sex are sacrosanct, then completely fail to provide for the products of birth to survive in this world.

It is now three years since I was last in India and I had not realised until today that the country has transformed itself into a paradise for human rights since 2008. Today, May 24, it was India’s turn in the spotlight in a process known as the Universal Periodic Review under which every state in the UN has to submit to an examination of its human rights record. So this afternoon I sat and listened to the Attorney General of India present his county’s report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and what a report!

read more

"[T]his is an experiment. It is an attempt to find out more about how the world works, and it may allow us to feed more human beings. Agricultural technology, as led by the father of the Green Revolution Norman Borlaug, is credited with saving a billion lives last century, and GM is just another aspect of that. How can a serious political party back acts of vandalism against scientific research? Until Jenny Jones and the rest of the Green Party drops this awful, damaging, stupid behaviour, no serious environmentalist should be able to vote for them."

"The rumours are wrong; I'll be at the picnic on Sunday, not destroying the crop. I shall voice my opposition to research into GM crops that I think is a bad, possibly dangerous use of public money. I strongly support non-violent direct action and disown damage to property, but there's sometimes a conflict; in damaging military jets in an attempt to sabotage an unjust war, or breaking windows in the name of women's' suffrage, direct action has a complicated and distinguished place in our democratic history. And I do understand the depth of despair and the desperation that protesters feel. But they must face the legal consequences of their actions, and think deeply about the ethics of their actions – like lots of things in life it's more complicated than some of my critics seem to want to admit."

"[I]s cross-pollination possible? Yes, as scientists we work on the principle that anything is possible. Is it likely? No. What’s more, even if it did happen, the actual chances of this GM wheat successfully establishing itself in the wild are extremely low, since wheat is uncompetitive with other plants."

So, in honor of wine, holidays and good times in general, I lift a glass or three to you. Have a happy holiday!

– the chaplain

"Thou shall not lie with a male as one does with a woman. It is an abomination."

“Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord."

Save Ballet !

Two well-known religion-poisons-everything Atheists just wrote about Bible Literacy.  Biologist Jerry Coyne wrote “Is the Bible Great Literature?” as a comment on biologist Richard Dawkins’s Gardian article called “Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible“.   How do you feel about Biblical literacy?

As I got ready to publish this post, I thought, “Gee, haven’t I had already written on this subject?” And indeed I had, but the post was in my unpublished draft pile — so I just posted it.   In that post you can see that I think saying “The Bible is a great literary masterpiece” is false on several levels: (1) The Bible is not homogenous, and (2) Many books of the Bible are certainly far from unique and many are worthless as literature.  But in this post, as in Coyne’s and Dawkin’s articles, I address two different issues:

•  What is the value of reading the Bible in order to understand Western literature?
•   What is the value of requiring such reading?

These are two important questions to keep distinct.  One is a personal question, while the other is a policy question.  Public (government) schools must make choices on exactly what to teach children.  But the number of classes are limited.  Should Bible Literacy be one of those class — and at the expense of what other classes?

I am not in favor of the government’s role is saving orchestras, classical languages, ballet, Shakespeare, sports or the Bible.  For me, all such efforts are stuffy parochialism.  The world is a big place and always changing. Who is to say what should be preserved?  Let people decide freely.   Though I love religious literacy, I would not impose my pleasures on others.  Religious literacy greatly improves my enjoyment of literature and films, but I disagree with Stephen Prothero’s book, “Religious Literacy“, where he advocates for more religious education in secular schools.

I agree that to deeply understand European and American literature prior to 1970s (* Sabio shamelessly pulls a date out of thin air), familiarity with both the Christian religion and its scriptures along with familiarity with Greek religion helps immensely. But so what?  Is that a reason to require Bible classes in the first 12 years of a child’s education?  The pertinent religious allusions in a novel can be explained during a literature class,  students could then read more of the Bible on their own if they desired.  No need for separate courses on the Bible.

A favorite Japanese Anime (“Spirited Away“)

To enjoy all literature deeply, much more than just Biblical literacy is needed.  If you want to read any of India’s literature, familiarity with the Mahabharata and the Ramayana is essential too. Understanding many Japanese animes without understanding the Japanese mix of Buddhism and Shintoism means much of the story will go over your head.  Confucian ideology is essential to really understand much of Chinese literature and film.  The list goes on and on.  Should we require all of these?

I love tasting new experiences, so my homework becomes daunting and is always incomplete! But I should no more demand all children to have my sensibilities than others should demand that my children learn to enjoy their favorite arts or past-times. People forget how parochial their education policies are.

Question to readers:

• What background reading is necessary to understand your favorite forms of fiction?
• Have you seen the value of knowing another religion’s literature in understanding any literature or film?
• Do you feel Biblical Literacy should be required teaching in children’s education in the West?

Many Muslims say that there is nothing more beautiful than the words of the Qur’an when it is read in Arabic. Many Hindus believe Sanskrit is magical and uniquely enlivens their Vedas. It is no surprise that many Christians belief their holy text collection is also a uniquely special literary feat. This is what believers do – they stress uniqueness. Heck, some Western scholars, without even holding religious affiliations, believe no finer literature exists than Shakespeare — having never explored anything deeply but Western literature, this is an obvious choice.

It is a basic human trait to believe that your club has the best in its class.

One large mistake, when trying to discuss the Bible, is to buy into the assumption that it is one homogenous work — as if one author wrote it.  Conservative Christians would tell us that the Bible really has only one author — God.  They feel God planned the whole book (contrary to its obvious hodgepodge evolution) and that God guided and used men to give us his words.   Yet even with a cursory studying of the books in the Bible, we can hear the contradictory theologies and the different perspectives of all her different authors.

So, to accurately entertain the literary value of the Bible, and not concede to this Christian myth of homogeneity, we need to evaluate each book or group of books in the Bible by themselves.

Judging the literary value of a piece, yet alone a collection of pieces is fraught with subjective obstacles so we obviously won’t come to a consensus.   But I would encourage non-believers not to concede that the Bible is a literary masterpiece just so they can soften the eyes of disdaining Christians. For instance, let’s use an example of something Christians often  an example of a Biblical “masterpiece”:

Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these? He who brings out their host and numbers them, calling them all by name; because he is great in strength, mighty in power, not one is missing.
–Isaiah 40:26 RSV

Christians Walter Specht and Sakae Kubo try to tell us that Isaiah 40 is “[o]ne of the literary masterpieces of the OT.”  But look at this Egyptian composition from the Great Hymn of Osiris dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1500-1295 BCE):

Plants sprout by his wish
Earth grows food for him.
Sky and stars obey him.
The great portals open for him
Lord of acclaim in the southern sky
Sanctified in the northern sky.

You see, both Osiris (an Egyptian god) and Yahweh (a Hebrew god) control the stars and thus show their power. How can we can we not compare these two Iron Age documents as being anything but similar? Most Christians haven’t read religious documents from other traditions but naturally assume their holy books must be fantastic.

The problem here is clear and simple: unadulterated parochialism.

Sources:

• This post was inspired by: The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos: pgs 223-4.  The following texts are from his notes.
• Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976), 2:82.
• Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Spect, So Many Versions? Twentieth Century English Versions Of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), p. 234.

Related Posts:

• Is the Tanakh Great Literature? : another probing post
• How Unique is your Religion? : with a fun graph!
• Distasteful Concessions:  common polite pablum which is false
• Parochialism: a blinding principle we all share
• Magic Language Bias:  viewing your religion’s language as unique
• The Homogenized Bible:  a Christian myth

One of the advantages to getting emails from the American Family Association is that I learn which companies are on their hit lists. Home Depot has been a recurring target for them as the company has steadfastly refused to be intimidated by religious wingnuts. Here’s an AFA report of their latest failed skirmish with Home Depot:

Another AFA target (can’t help the pun, it’s in the name, FFS!) is Target:

You’ll notice that I highlighted the bit about calling Target. I’m going to call and let them know that I support their efforts. I’m also going to call local Home Depots, per the AFA’s suggestion (which I didn’t highlight), and let them know I support the company’s policy on inclusion. Maybe you could do likewise. If the AFA is going to give out the information, we can use it to subvert their efforts. Are you with me? Let’s show support to companies like Target and Home Depot who are standing against prejudice and injustice.

– the chaplain